Community action and tiger conservation: Assessing the role of social capital

1. Archi Rastogi* ± #

2. Sneha Thapiyal+

3. Gordon M Hickey*

*Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Canada+± Wildlife Institute of India, India

# Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada ^Centre for Public Policy, Indian Institute of Management Banglore, Banglore, India

Contents

Introduction Social capital Study area Methods Results Discussion

Introduction

Biodiversity Conservation

(Tigers)

Large Protected Areas, Exclusively

Managed

Introduction

Conflict, Management Issues, Political Issue

Negative Feedback, Extinction of

Tigers

Social capital

“Networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam 1993)

Networks, flow of information, trust, reciprocity and shared norms

Social capital and tiger conservation?

Effective partnerships (Kawanishi and Seidensticker 2010)

Support for management (Rastogi et al. 2012)

Control poaching (Project Tiger 2005)

Reduction in ‘revenge killing’(Damania et al. 2003)

Political support (Chhatre and Saberwal 2005)

Political challenges (Chhatre and Saberwal 2005; Saberwal 1996)

Collective non-cooperation or retaliation (Mukherjee 2009)

Incendiary action (Damania et al. 2003)

Cooperation in poaching?

Social capital is key!

Study Area: Corbett Tiger Reserve, India

Globally important tiger population

Corbett Tiger Reserve

Corbett Tiger Reserve

Source: Rastogi et al. (2010)

Methods: social capital

Village level data: interviews Household level: questionnaires

Social Capital Assement Tool (SCAT) Integrated Questionnaire for the

Measurement of Social Capital (SC-IQ) Qualitative component: interviews

Methods: Questionnaire1. Demographic Profile2. Structural Social Capital

• Exclusions• Collective action• Organizational density• Networks and mutual support• Conflict resolution

3. Cognitive Social Capital Solidarity Reciprocity and cooperation Trust

Methods

Locally adapted Control for respondent’s and household

charachtersistics Analysis: ordered logit regression; likelihood of

going from ‘low’ collective action to ‘high’ collective action

Results  Model 1 Model 2

  CoefficientStandard error

Odds ratio CoefficientStandard error

Odds ratio

Structural social capital0.186***a 0.06 1.204      

0.007b 0.062 1.007      Components of structural social capital:

 

(i) Exclusions       0.633 0.467 1.883(i) Collective action       0.121 0.153 1.129(i) Organizational

density and characteristics

      -0.044 0.159 0.957

(i) Networks and mutual support

      0.394*a 0.235 1.483      -0.225b 0.240 0.799

(i) Conflict resolution       0.157 0.173 1.17

Cognitive social capital0.013a 0.055 1.013      

0.233***b 0.069 1.262      Components of cognitive social capital:

 

(i) Solidarity      -0.073a 0.159 0.929      0.4**b 0.196 1.492

(i) Reciprocity and cooperation

      0.505** 0.202 1.657

(i) Trust       -0.073a 0.159 0.929Controls for respondent and household characteristics

Yes Yes

Observations 120     120    LR chi2 37.65     41.71    Prob > chi2 0.0002     0.0012    Pseudo R2 0.167     0.185    Log likelihood -93.95     -91.97    *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1Coding for components of social capital: 1- no one or affected parties; 2 – village leaders; 3 – the whole village.For variables that violate the proportional odds assumption: a – coefficient for expecting village leaders of the whole village to respond compared to no one or affected parties responding; b - coefficient for expecting someone to respond versus the whole village to respond.

Partial Proportional Odds Ordered Logit Models for components of social capital in the villages

Results: qualitative

Intense tourism Rise in price of land financial disparity

Loss of solidarity and trust (forthcoming)

Discussion: Implications for tiger conservation

Social capital facilitates collective action

Direction of action may vary

Community action is key

Discussion: components of social capital

Both structural and cognitive

Possible to engineer: networks and leadership

Inherent: solidarity

Discussion: social capital undermined?

Tourism as a resource? Transforms village, reduces social capital

Inequity in distributing benefits

Conclusion

Complex, multilayered institutions needed

Social capital is a resource, not a challenge!

Conclusion

Complex challenges

Pragmatic solutions

Who Killed the Tiger? Tuesday, Assembly Hall A, 15:30

Acknowledgements

Sustainable Futures Research Laboratory Wildlife Institute of India Department of Environment and Resource Studies,

University of Waterloo

Fonds de recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC), Quebec Tomlinson Centennial Fellowship in Forest Ecology Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University The Corbett Foundation Viraat Welfare Society

Thank you